starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
StarCraft Wiki talk:Canon policy
Novels I would like to suggest that the Blizzard-authorized novels be moved up with the Blizzard-published ones, or at the very least above Retribution and Insurrection. The various novels, while not directly published by Blizzard, were written under Blizzard's supervision and approved by them prior to release. On the other hand, Blizzard had no involvement at all in Retribution and Inusrrection and merely allowed the companies that created them to do so. And, of course, Metzen's said that the novels retelling the story of the game at least are intended to be the official version. -- Dark T Zeratul 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Blizzard has little to no oversight over several novels, actually. I don't think there was anything beyond surface oversight for Liberty's Crusade, Shadow of the Xel'Naga and Speed of Darkness. In any event, until I can get SCLegacy's copy of the Lore Interview again (their site is down), I only have half of Metzen's answer. (He gave the other half in the Q&A session, which isn't on Gamespot's video.) So the short answer is that I can make little change until I can see that video again. PsiSeveredHead 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Lord of Ascension from StarCraft Legacy might be able to get me a copy of the video. If so, I can use that as a source. But it depends on how long it takes him to get the copy to me. PsiSeveredHead 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) If the StarCraft Anthology is similar to the Warcraft Archieve then we'll probably get an outline of the formation of these novels anyway. As for Blizzard's involvement, I'm guessing that at least in Liberty's Crusade there was a degree of involvement. Metzen generally set a format of novel development ever since the first Blizzard novel (Warcraft: Day of the Dragon). Chapters are submitted one at a time for proof reading. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Shadow of the Xel'Naga and 'Speed of Darkness' were excepted from the process, as it was said in the interview that at the time of their writing, Blizzard generally wanted to avoid the 'big questions', hence producing side stories. Still, I guess they could go above Insurrection and Retribution, although they don't seem to contradict canon as far as I can tell.--Hawki 06:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Good News ... and Bad Someone put the long version up on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoVYlFOrhvc and on Veoh: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v9347468w6R2neF?searchId=945800622429384595&rank=2 Bad news: Saturday night is not a good time for me. I'm basically going to be busy, possibly until Wednesday evening. However, I'll dig through it, get the quote, and shuffle the categories appropriately. PsiSeveredHead 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Comments on Book Lore Questioner: Will you be referencing any of the character development like, say, Queen of Blades towards the ending in any of the upcoming games like StarCraft II... do you kind of say the books were the books and the game is the game? Chris Metzen: These books specifically are kind of the definitive take in my mind, which means we got a chance in Queen of Blades to show you a lot of scenes we could not show in the game. When does Raynor actually meet these guys? When does sic Tassadar and Zeratul actually hook up and meet? That's a huge part of the game that we never show. How does Tassadar, this Executor of the Protoss, this really talented, driven guy, get jumped into this whacked cult that his bosses hate and by the end of it become this Twilight Messiah and take down the monster alien of the galaxy. How did that all happen? We never actually touch any of it in the game. I don't even know if it occurred to me that we didn't when we published it... talk about a galaxy-sized hole. So, the books have been our chance to fill in some of those gaps, and try and tell more the story, make it make sense more sic. But of course, like Liberty's Crusade wasn't quite as full. There were events in the game that we didn't cover in that book, but the soul of the book is true, like the idea that there were small interaction with Raynor and Kerrigan that we didn't see in the game. A lot of times, so we're trying to tell a story, and it's a wargame, which was difficult to do back in the day, thus our pretty new story mode, but the idea was that you couldn't always get all the beats in that you wanted, even the beats that really make it make sense in a linear fashion and from a thematic standpoint. We actually didn't always get to say everything we needed to say. Surprisingly, the game held up pretty well, like you know, what it was in the day, we're still very very proud of it, but it's almost like despite the technology, we always had a lot of frustrations... we were not able to get everything in, so I guess what I'm trying to say with way too many words is the fact that the books are our chance at redemption and telling the whole tale, so my hope is that they do it well. Andy Chambers: Well, as I mentioned earlier on, we're also taking the opportunity to take characters who may be appearing in the books and put them into the game of StarCraft II, like Matt Horner, as an example, never appeared in StarCraft, but he's there in Queen of Blades... he's a pretty cool guy, we should really use that character. That's all part of trying to make everything together into this grand universe ideal, which I what I trying to shoot for. It's like it doesn't matter how obscure the reference is, if it's out there its got some role that crosses over to the rest. I'm not a big fan myself of "well, they're in the novels, they have nothing to do with the game"... It's a big living breathing universe ... every time you put a brick on the wall it becomes a part of the universe. PsiSeveredHead 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Blizzard has stated more recently that even the manga stories are still part of the universe, and that Blizzard is in constant communication with the authors in order to link their products with Blizzard works. Most of what you will find in the manga are one off stories that are still a part of the universe and expands our knowledge of the universe. It’s safe to say that the Voice in the Darkness and the Dark Void are two different entities. As far as Blizzard works with the authors there’s a lot of back and forth and a lot of talking. It’s not just Blizzard telling these authors “Hey, can you write a book about Nova? Thanks! See you on the other side.” And I would like there to be even more communication than that so that we could really bring the manga and the novels to be even more intertwined with the games. That way we can introduce stuff in one that pays off in the other and vice versa. that’s definitely something we are doing and want to do more of.Brian Kindregan, Eldorian. 2010-10-28. Blizzcon: Interview with StarCraft 2 Lead Writer Brian Kindregan. Blizzplanet. Accessed 2010-10-31. Retcon Article I just had an idea concerning lore, one which I picked up from wowwiki. This is the idea of a retcon article, a list of changes made in the series so that people can access old lore and, if nesecary, choose what to consider canon and not. Take the Korhal article for example, in which it would be stated that nukes were launched from Tarsonis, killing 5 million. Going by more recent lore provided in Uprising and Liberty's Crusade, this would be changed to Battlecruisers and 35 million respectively. However, in the trivia section the original lore could be mentioned and/or a link to the retcon list provided. Granted, I don't think that every discrepency should be taken as a retcon, dates provided in Uprising being examples (eg. millenia, seven year Guild War). I guess its' really instinct as to what's an error and what's a retcon. Anyway, just an idea.--Hawki 23:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The main (only?) problem I would have with this is... how do I know it's a retcon and not just an error? Metzen has made official retcons in the Warcraft universe, so I'm not sure if the retcon references at WOWwiki are all referring to something said by a Blizzard employee, or just pretty much any change. I do know they have a specific article on "Chris Metzen on Lore" but that only refers to the draenei retcon. PsiSeveredHead 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Hmm...good point. As for wowwiki, it pretty much goes with whatever latest version of lore is presented. Still, I've begun to take the stance that errors are just as likely as retcons-if one takes the ToD novelisation as 100% canon, you may as well say that goblins and gnomes didn't fight in the Second War. Guess it's up to personal preference.--Hawki 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) The Story So Far Blizzard posted "the Story So Far" at http://www.starcraft2.com/features/storysofar.xml and there's a few retcons in it (included in previous novels) such as Artanis' and Duke's ranks at various times. Note that Zeratul had green eyes in StarCraft: Queen of Blades, and now in StarCraft II he has ... green eyes. Interesting. There'll probably be debate (or just apathy) until Blizzard puts out a timeline or something along those lines.Blizzard Entertainment Staff. 2007-11-21. The Story so Far... Part 1: StarCraft. Blizzard Entertainment. Accessed 2007-11-21. Fifth Tier? I followed the link to Oong, also exploring the rest of the archived material. Not only are there other characters mentioned, but also extra info pertaining to units, organizations, etc. It's something that I've been wondering about for awhile, how to treat info found in previous builds and SC: Ghost. Individual articles are fine, a statement that they're of dubious canon status clearing things up. Pre-existing units however, is another matter. Info is given on the Ghost PA profile in the early info for instance; while the PA profile itself is canon (being found on the Ghost's battle.net page, there's no mention of the value given. I was thinking that this information could be incorporated and soured into articles provided it doesn't conflict with higher canon levels, such actions already having been applied to units such as the Vulture and Siege Tank. Still, thought it best to get feedback on the idea first.--Hawki 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) : I just like to note that if information is added to an in-universe section, it should be written and presented in an in-universe format. Anything that can't be done that way is best allocated to a separate 'Development/Pre-release' section. Meco 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with Meco on this. Even though the information comes from battle.net, it's been removed, so the canon status is dubious. If it interferes with something that was later present on the site, then the newer information should hold the higher status. Isn't the (old) Ghost's PA value "at least 250"?PsiSeveredHead 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Obviously all official material takes precedence over unreleased/cancelled material, but considering that little of it conflicts with higher material, it hasn't turned out to be an issue. The PA value is given on the old site, but isn't given on the new one. As such, the PA profile itself is canon, but the value is not necessarily. Still, since the value doesn't conflict with any higher canon, it can be incorporated IMO.--Hawki 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It kind of does, actually. It conflicts with the Nova novel. (There, Ghosts are 5-6, which is twice as high (and then times 100). PsiSeveredHead 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) : I've noticed that in the recently edited articles we've had to add notes like this came from the StarCraft Beta and thus is of dubious canonity. Perhaps we should make a note of that in the official canon policy, so in the articles we can cite like StarCraft Beta and dispense with the awkward disclaimer? Meco 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)) Hmm... or maybe a template? Kind of like spoiler? I think lots of people don't look at the references. PsiSeveredHead 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) : I've whipped up Template:AmbigCanon that has the content needed for the purpose. We can work on the look and feel as we go. Meco 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Recent Edits I have a good idea as to what's coming, so I'll explain myself here. Way I see it, I have a number of options: *Move dates and years. Unfortunatly, this ammounts to an edit war. *Walk away (tempting, but I'm not too keen on letting what is incorrect info IMO be left up after editing for so long). *Found a new wiki (too much effort) *Accomadate (hmm) So yeah, accomadation's been chosen. As much as I disagree with the dates provided in Heaven's Devils, it's become clear that sticking to what I consider to be the genuine ones isn't an option. So, all I/we can do is place the date discrepencies in the timeline articles and remove distinct dates in articles such as ones for characters where they contradict, bar mentions in notes sections. This fits with the new canon policy and the removal of tiered canon. If we're not opperating in tiers, then we should let users decide for themselves which are the legitimate facts. Also standardized referencing. Know this goes against what's written in the policy, but I'd rather keep it standard and everything else the same, rather than setting a precedent that would cause our citation index to fall apart.--Hawki 07:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC) :Please take into account that a lot of old dates were either derived from speculation or have been clearly superseded. As a result, some of the edits were unneeded. We don't really need to be taking away Alexei Stukov's date of birth, for instance, since the timing of the beginning of the Brood War is clear. (The month of his birth... not so much.) A lot of information you're listing as "contradiction" has in fact been "retconned".) :We need to state where we're getting derived information from. It's not fair to expect a visitor to go delving into a source to find the specific text reference(s) for how we got a date, and sometimes there's calculations and so forth involved as well (so we can't just direct them to a page and text reference). It's also a good way to weed out speculation. ::Where you got some of the specific dates used to drive me up the wall, too. There were so many, asking you how you got all of them wasn't practical. And many of those dates have been superseded (but in an indirect way). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 15:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC) ::So please don't put them back. Engaging in an edit war over nearly every year in the timeline will cause nothing but problems. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 22:24, April 13, 2010 (UTC) You know, an edit war would have been wholesale reversion. What I tried was accomadation and acknowledgement of discrepencies as per the tennants of the policy. But no matter. I've had enough. If you're apllying an Animal Farm policy, then this needs to be stated in what ammounts for 'policy' we have now. Or, I guess, what you have. It's obvious that in light of the removal of the old tiered system, there's no objectivity, there's simply one version of the truth, and the idea of all sources being equally valid is just a facade, dates or not. Now while this one version, no acknowledgement of discrepencies (or, at least the discrepencies that go against your ideology) modus operandi would work well in the world of 1984, it doesn't leave much room for anyone else. Discussion failed. Accomadation failed. So, in the interest of not being taken to the Ministry of Love, all I can say is have fun running your little kingdom. In the old days, we were all bound by what ammounted to law. But with that disintergrated and any edits subject to a higher whim, it's become clear that there's no longer a place for me. Congratulations. You have free reign.--Hawki 22:30, April 13, 2010 (UTC) Branching Variants References How many other talk pages have references? These are probably needed here though. That DVD In a recent edit, you said the DVD has a "canon playthrough" or something like that. What did you mean by that? Because I didn't see that in the DVD. Just a list of cinematics, which wouldn't have anything to do with Cutthroat. (It does have the cinematic after Media Blitz, but then it has all of them.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 04:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC) It establishes the events as occuring, via the interludes. For the Media Blitz stuff to occur, Cutthroat has to occur also. It's the same principle for every branching mission except Piercing the Shroud, which doesn't get covered and the Char mission choice.--Hawki 04:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC) More Confusion A month after Wings of Liberty was released, Blizzard again reiterated that there was no canon. So now this from BlizzCon: Sure, yea I can say that we do say that the A choice that you made, was the canon decision. So, in terms of the SC canon, Raynor sided with Tosh and Raynor helped the colonists against Selendis. That said, I really would like to not have any player feel like their choice has been invalidated. In general, except for when the implications become overpowering, I think I'm going to try to stay away from going back and examining that stuff except when we really need to, so that you can play the game and really feel like your choices are being carried forward, and we do have the technology to check your save-game by the way. Chris Metzen, Brian Kindregan, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2010-10-23. BlizzCon 2010 StarCraft II Lore Panel. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2010-10-25. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 11:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC) Um, isn't that quote establishing that there is canon? The type of canon I theorized to exist ages ago, that like numerous other games, company canon exists while leaving options open to the player? From the statement, by my interpretation, is that storywise, the dvd decisions are carried over, plus the paths (e.g. full playthrough is canon bar Castanar which remains optional) and that the player choice aspect is gameplay based.--Hawki 12:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the quote from an interview two months ago said the exact opposite. :"Question: With the branching paths you can take in the single-player campaign, like choosing to grab the artifact, how will it affect the canon? Dustin Browder: Right now, I think we're assuming that Raynor finishes the game and that it ends in one way, but we simply won't let those choices be a part of the canon down the road. Follow-up: Back during like WC1 WC2 you pick the Alliance or the Horde game, so it'd be like that? Dustin Browder: No, it will be like, we don't talk about the colonists from Haven anymore, because it would have been your choice as to how they lived or died or whatever happened to them, right? Follow-up: So they wouldn't factor it in. Dustin Browder: We do not factor it in. That content is yours right? We have given to you, the player. You decided what happened there, we didn't decide, and it's hands-off for us down the road." Well, here's one source: http://sclegacy.com/feature/3-events/670-april-19th-wings-of-liberty-fansite-qa-session You mentioned how players make choices throughout the game. One of the few complaints I’ve heard echoed about StarCraft II is that those choices that you make are based heavily around the plot that’s developing, but they end up having very little effect on the story. Instead, the choices decide mostly gameplay-related elements. Was there ever any plan or had you ever discussed having the story branch off more based off the player’s choices? We did, and there were a couple of factors that went into why we decided not to go that route. One of them, of course, was simply the cinematics we’d have to do. If we had a really widely varying game, we’d have to create multiple end cinematics, and if we wanted those to be pre-renders, that wouldn’t have been feasibly possible for us. At that point, they could have been in-game cutscenes, of course, which I think look pretty good. That’s an option we could have chosen. But the second factor is more of a creative choice. We’re even now struggling with this a little bit with what has happened in Wings of Liberty. There isn’t really a canon. We felt like a lot of our players and we ourselves wanted to know what happened. We wanted to have that sense of story. While other games – Mass Effect being a great example – do embrace that sort of player-chosen story, and that’s really one of the core hooks for their entire game – that’s really what their game is about – we didn’t feel like that made as much sense for our game. We felt like people want to know, “How did StarCraft end?” not “Which ending did you get?” That’s very subjective. I don’t know why we felt like that was right for StarCraft, but obviously for Mass Effect that’s not the case. Some fans out there look at games and want to say, “One size fits all.” Some people ask where storytelling in games is going and think it has to go one way or another. That’s not a satisfactory answer for them. It’s either the Mass Effect way or the StarCraft way, and that’s what it has to be. We view it as more of a continuum. It can be any way that makes sense for the game. What makes sense for Mass Effect may not feel right for StarCraft. I don’t have a harder, math answer for you, but it felt right to us that StarCraft had a canon, that there was an ending that everyone can understand. I agree that there’s room for both those types of games. It definitely seemed to me as I played through, though, that were remnants of you considering doing multiple endings. For example -- and without getting into too many spoilers about the end of the game for readers who might not have finished it -- a lot of times throughout the story, a crew member or someone will confront Raynor and ask him, “What’s going to happen when you meet Kerrigan?” And he constantly brings up this idea of how it’s going to be up to him. It’s his choice. Nobody else is going to affect it. As I was building up to that, I kept wondering, as Raynor, am I going to be able to choose what happens? Things like that struck me as remnants of a change in design. That particular line was actually not a remnant, but you’re right that they exist. We had many discussions about what we wanted to do, and a lot of the choices that we settled on between Tosh and Hanson and some of the characters where you make significant decisions about their fate, that’s us paying homage to that type of gameplay. We find that fun, and we want to include some of it, but we still want to have canon when it ends. The lines you’re talking about really are designed to build tension for what’s going to happen in the end-game scenario. What will Raynor decide to do? It wasn’t trying to imply choice, but I totally see why you would have thought that. That makes sense to me. Maybe we were telegraphing something there that we should have been more careful with. Another one: http://gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/09/19/afterwords-starcraft-ii.aspx?PostPageIndex=2 (dated September 19, 2010) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:34, October 26, 2010 (UTC) I guess we should call this one less confusion, since this is as clear as it gets: Blizzard has clarified their position on canon, stating that while the "A" choice is canon, they wrote things later so a player's choice is never invalidated. We’ve had a discussion about that and there’s a couple ways we’d like to handle it but we have to have canon in that this is the definite choice. So what we’ve come up with is what we call the “A” choice is always canon. So in that case it would be siding with Hanson so that she is alive. Siding with Tosh and choosing on Char to take out the air platform. However, we’re trying not to actively deny that your experience has never happened. So what we’re doing is, if we ever need to reference something, we have a canon version. But the truth is, my preference is to just avoid those topics all together so that your experience is never invalidated. So you play Wings of Liberty and you make certain choices as you go forward in the StarCraft Universe. You don’t run into anything that invalidates your previous choices. Source: Blizzcon: Interview with StarCraft 2 Lead Writer Brian Kindregan. So, with all being said and done, shouldn't we reflect A canon in the wiki instead of leaving things ambiguous? It seems that the experience aspect is gameplay-based, the same personal choice that always endures regardless of what the official line is.--Hawki 07:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC) Yes, we'd need to apply that to branching templates all over the wiki. First we need a good way to link that to the appropriate section of the canon page. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC) Actually, I was thinking something along the lines of what we had before, of normal text, but referencing the key choices. E.g. for Tosh, Raynor sided with Tosh and liberated New Folsom. I think the optional missions template and maybe the branch ones still have their uses in gameplay, but they're a bit restrictive in lore articles and convey ambiguity that, IMO, the A canon concept cut through. The branch template could still have a use though, such as the Castanar mission and whether Lhassir dies or not. In essence, I find the A canon concept similar to Star Wars canon, where Light side pathways are always canon, and dark side pathways treated in the notes section. Should be easy enough to do-WoL provides choices, but it's no KOTOR in scale.--Hawki 20:42, November 7, 2010 (UTC) "E.g. for Tosh, Raynor sided with Tosh and liberated New Folsom." And then where do we put B canon? I'd rather put things in effective chronological order, like what we've done with Enslavers. (In other words, continue to use the Branch template, simply stating which is A and which is B.) B canon needs to remain in the main article space. Given that the choices do not affect the further storyline in any event, I wouldn't want "B canon" to be relegated to the bottom of the page or the notes section. On another note, there's also confusion about Belly of the Beast. In the main interview, they said that Shatter the Sky was canon, but Belly of the Beast is the "A" map (and before you make your choice, the game tells you the name of the next mission is Belly of the Beast). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 21:24, November 7, 2010 (UTC) I guess it may be prudent to leave out A/B designations for when Belly/Shatter come into play. As for the rest, while I think it's delaying the inevitable, I suppose it's alright to work on a branching nature unless it's referenced externally. Which, even if you ignore the dvd, has already happened (Ghosts of the Past) (the Cooper article is an example).--Hawki 12:40, November 25, 2010 (UTC) References Shatter the Sky/Belly of the Beast The article seems to contradict itself. It says that Belly of the Beast was declared canon, but the quote given ("...siding with Hanson so that she is alive. Siding with Tosh and choosing on Char to take out the air platform.") implies that Blizzard considers Shatter the Sky canon. - Sikon 05:43, October 24, 2011 (UTC) :Fixed. Blizzard changed its mind. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:00, October 24, 2011 (UTC) Notability Scoured the forum, but notability articles always seemed to be confined to one specific area. Went out on a limb and expanded the notability policy. Obviously this is up to peer review, but the basic areas as I see them are: *Fan maps: Include as Blizzard/some other sites recognise, but keep them to one article each. Don't want another Night of the Dead on our hands. *Fan art: Covered by the image policy. Think it's important to stress though that it should't become the foundation for articles. Otherwise, using Warcraft as an example, we're liable to get a lot of "x the y" articles as per the titles of artwork. *Fanfiction: Covers both written material and comics. Think we have to be particuarly cautious here, in that we have a fanfic wiki and in the written sense, anyone can do it and think they're publishing Shakespeare. *Fan music: I'm inclined to consider having a category for fan music linked to the music category proper in that I think music articles are more there for entertainment and little else. Regardless, follow Blizzard's lead and group where one can (e.g., if Husky StarCraft gets recognised, keep its songs on the same page rather than making individual articles). Feel free to edit/add as necessary.--Hawki 07:23, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Edit: Concerning music...might be better to just make individual track articles and leave out band ones. Blizzard seems more inclined to notice tracks rather than users, and this will save us from making supplemental data. Blizzard recognises Husky's Baneling song, but not the other ones? Keep the baneling one, ignore the others. Works better than creating a Husky article with songs that haven't been recognised.--Hawki 07:26, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Edit 2: Another snag with the music issue, in that there's the criteria of actual products-as in, something that can be purchased. It's not that difficult to get a song on iTunes as far as I can tell, and people are making money off such songs. Essentially, I'm starting to think about re-evaluating my stance on music. Maybe it should be limited to bands, but only when the band itself is actually recognised. This will prevent us from having to create a music article for every track. Either way, I've cut music out of the policy, as I think it needs full discussion.--Hawki 08:11, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Template needed I think someone needs to make a non-canon template for things that aren't part of the story of Starcraft, like the Panda marines and other such things. Alockwood1 01:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :The panda marine probably isn't the best example in that it's simply visor art with a likely terran inside. As for the others (worgen marine, goblin marine) we have the Warcraft template to designate its non-canon status.--Hawki 01:12, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::A lot of such articles have templates like "silly" on them as well. The Panda Marine doesn't have any lore text in it; it's just an achievement portrait. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 02:26, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :::I meant to do the Tauren Marine as an example- though there is also the Defense of the Ancients, plus the other fan-mod maps that have been posted. Alockwood1 00:06, May 5, 2012 (UTC) Co-op Canon So with this AMA Blizzard came out and stated that they do not consider co-op canon as to give themselves more creative freedom. I was wondering if we wanted to change the policy we have here about co-op to reflect this (I didn't want to jump the gun without asking at least first). I think it's still safe to leave them in articles as ambiguously canon though. -Subsourian (talk) 15:49, May 19, 2016 (UTC) :I think leave the articles as is, but create a specific template similar to the ones used for material from Ghost or StarCraft Adventures.--Hawki (talk) 22:41, May 19, 2016 (UTC) ::^Agreed. DrakeyC (talk) 03:52, May 20, 2016 (UTC) Branching WoL Revisited Something I wanted to revisit, it seems that canon media assumes that Raynor did every mission path in WoL. If you didn't do the spectre missions in Heart of the Swarm, Nova will still default to saying you helped Tosh, and Mengsk references Media Blitz in The Reckoning whether you did it or not. Blackstone mentions that Hanson's arc did happen, and Flashpoint makes it clear that Raynor saw Zeratul's prophecy all the way through, and makes (albeit more subtle) references to the Castinaar missions. Given every arc has had some reference made to it happening in later canon, do we still need "the following is from the X missions" every time there's WoL information on not-critical path missions? It feels redundant with the confirmation that those arcs did happen. I was also thinking of keeping it on the branching canon choices, but making the template more clear which is the canon path. --Subsourian (talk) 13:25, June 24, 2019 (UTC)